Eleutheria
Eleutheria: A Graduate Student Journal
Volume 3
Issue 1 Volume 3, Issue 1
Article 3
12-2014
The Eternal Progression Argument against
Mormonism
Jonathan R. Pruitt
Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/eleu
Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, Philosophy Commons, and the Religious Thought,
Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons
Recommended Citation
Pruitt, Jonathan R. (2014) "The Eternal Progression Argument against Mormonism," Eleutheria: Vol. 3: Iss. 1, Article 3.
Available at: http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/eleu/vol3/iss1/3
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and Graduate School at DigitalCommons@Liberty
University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Eleutheria by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Liberty University. For more
information, please contact [email protected].
The Eternal Progression Argument against Mormonism
Abstract
This paper argues that Mormon cosmology plus the Mormon view of the origin of human persons results in
an undercutting defeater for Mormonism. The approach is modeled after Plantinga’s evolutionary argument
against naturalism. The first step is to show that Mormon cosmology is relevantly like naturalism. The second
step is to show that the origin of human persons ins relevantly similar to naturalistic evolution so that it faces
the same kind of defeaters as the conjunction of naturalism and naturalistic evolution.
Keywords
Epistemology, Mormonism, Apologetics
Cover Page Footnote
Pursing PhD in Theology from LUBTS
This article is available in Eleutheria: http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/eleu/vol3/iss1/3
Eleutheria 3:1 Fall (2014) 20-34
INTRODUCTION
Alvin Plantinga has argued that “the conjunction of naturalism with the
belief that we human beings have evolved in conformity with current evolutionary
doctrine... is in a certain way self-defeating or self-referentially incoherent.”1 The
reason has to do with the origin of our cognitive faculties. If their origin is the
unguided process of evolution by natural selection, then either we have no reason to
think (or we have positive reason against thinking) that such faculties would
produce reliably true beliefs. Natural selection, after all, does not care about
whether a belief is true, but only whether some behavior is adaptive. Naturalism,
which Plantinga takes to be the view that there is no one like the monotheistic God
of Christianity, guarantees that there is no agent who either directly confers
reliable cognitive faculties or indirectly applies them by guiding the evolutionary
process. The only thing relevant to the formation of our cognitive faculties is just
pure, unguided evolution by natural selection, a process which has no preference for
producing true beliefs. The result is that we cannot rationally believe in naturalism
and evolution at the same time; belief in evolution undercuts belief in naturalism.
Mormonism might face the same kind of undercutting problem as naturalism
plus evolution for the same kinds of reasons.2 In order to see why, we’ll first have to
get the basic Mormon view of reality on the table.
THE MORMON WORLDVIEW
The Primordial Realm3
The Mormon view is that all that exists is matter, of which there are two
kinds: “rough,” visible matter, and “fine,” invisible matter. Sterling McMurrin, a
Mormon philosopher, argues that Joseph Smith’s view of reality is “essentially
pluralistic and materialistic.”4 McMurrin adds that, according to the Mormon
perspective, “there is no immaterial substance and… spiritual entities are not less
material than physical objects.”5 The Doctrine and Covenants also says, “There is
Alvin Plantinga, "The Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism," in Naturalism
Defeated? : Essays on Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism, ed. James K.
1
Beilby(Ithaca: Cornell University, 2002), 2.
2 Though there are a number of ways to argue against Mormonism, an epistemic approach
deserves special consideration. Many Mormons will appeal to a “burning in the bosom” as the
primary way of determining truth. Some may even appeal to something like the sensus divinitatis to
ground their belief. The argument here shows that these epistemologies are off limits to Mormons.
3 Outline of Mormon Cosmology modified from Jim Adams, "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and
Joseph Smith?," in The New Mormon Challenge : Responding to the Latest Defenses of a FastGrowing Movement, ed. Francis Beckwith, Carl Mosser, and Paul Owen (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
2002).
4 Sterling McMurrin as cited by J. P. Moreland, "The Absurdities of Mormon Materialism," in
The New Mormon Challenge : Responding to the Latest Defenses of a Fast-Growing Movement, ed.
Francis Beckwith, Carl Mosser, and Paul Owen(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 244.
5 Ibid.
21 The Eternal Progression Argument Against Mormonism
no such thing as immaterial matter [i.e., immaterial substance]. All spirit is matter,
but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes. We cannot see
it, but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.”6 Further,
Joseph Smith affirmed that matter itself was eternal, uncreated, and
indestructible.7
The implications of this kind of materialism have not often been explored by
LDS thinkers. But Orson Pratt, who was one of the original twelve apostles of the
church, gave an account how Mormon materialism might go. Though some of his
work is considered heterodox, he gives one of the fullest philosophical explanations
of Mormonism. Pratt’s ontology is critical to understanding “his
theological/philosophical anthropology,” and so it is critical to a view of Mormon
epistemology.8 In an essay titled, “The Absurdities of Immaterialism,” Pratt
outlines his view. For Pratt, “to exist is to be located in absolute space and time.”9
Being solid is to have “either existence itself or at least something associated with
existence.”10 Especially relevant to epistemological concerns is Pratt’s view of the
mind. He takes the mind to be material thing, but not equivalent to the brain or any
operation of the brain. Instead, the material mind “possessing the power to think, to
feel, to reason, to remember [i.e., the cognitive faculties]…is the being that inhabits
it, that preserves its own identity, whether in the body or out of it.”11 The material
mind is spatially located within a body by filling the body, which is very “porous.”12
In other words, the material mind is physically connected to the body. Presumably,
the mind controls the body through physical means.
The movements and nature of matter are governed by eternal laws. On
Christian theism, God decrees the laws. However, Joseph Smith mentioned that
there are “laws of eternal and self-existent principles” according to which man is
able to achieve salvation.13 Being “self-existent,” they could not have been decreed
by God. Former church President Ezra Taft Benson asserted, "Eternal laws exist
universally. They are present alike in the spiritual as well as in the physical world.
These priceless, fundamental principles and values never change.”14 Joseph
Fielding Smith, another former president, wrote, “The Lord works in accordance
with natural law.”15
6 D&C
131:7-8.
David Grant, “Matter,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel Ludlow (New York:
Macmillan, 1992), 868.
8 Moreland, 246.
9 Moreland, 246.
10 Ibid.
11 Orson Pratt, "Absurdities of Immaterialism," in The Essential Orson Pratt, ed. David J.
Whittaker(Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1991), 67.
12 Ibid., 70.
13 Joseph Smith and Joseph Fielding Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Salt
Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), 181.
14 Ezra Taft Benson, The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft,
1988), 116.
15 Adams, 183.
7 See
Eleutheria 3:1 Fall (2014) 22
The Eternal Progression Argument Against Mormonism
Besides law and matter, Joseph Smith further taught that “intelligence” was
self-existent and uncreated:
We say that God himself is a self-existent being…It is correct enough; but
how did it get into your heads? Who told you that man did not exist in like
manner on the same principles? Man does exist upon the same
principles…The mind or intelligence which man possesses is co-equal [i.e., coeternal] with God himself…There never was a time when there were not
spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in
heaven…Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is
a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it…The first principles
of man are self-existent with God.16
In this short statement, Smith apparently confirms that at least three things are
self-existent: God, intelligence, and “the first principles of man,” which are the same
principles that apply to God. However, we learn elsewhere from Smith that God is
of the same species as man. God is an intelligence, just as man is an intelligence.
Joseph Smith, in the King Follett Discourse, said,
God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits
enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent
today, and ... God ... (were) to make himself visible ... if you were to see him
today, you would see him like a man in form -- like yourselves in all the
person, image, and the very form as a man.”17
According to Joseph Smith, “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as
man’s.”18 He is a “personal Being… and exalted, perfected, and glorified Man of
Holiness and not a spirit that fills the immensity of space.”19 Therefore, it is not the
case that God existed as God from all eternity. Instead, at some point in the past, he
was a bare intelligence, just as man, at some point in his past, was a bare
intelligence. The significance of this is that God does not have special status over
the laws which are eternally self-existent. He exists upon the same principles as
man.
Truth and Intelligence
The nature of “intelligence” is critical to the LDS view of truth and the
overall epistemic situation of Mormonism. The nature of intelligence and truth are
tightly connected in Mormon thought. Joseph Smith said,
Smith, "The King Follett Sermon," Ensign (April 1971).
Smith and Smith, 345.
18 D&C 130:22a.
19 Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed. (Salt Lake City,: Bookcraft, 1966), 417.
16 Joseph
17
23 The Eternal Progression Argument Against Mormonism
Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the
Spirit of truth; And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they
were, and as they are to come…Man was also in the beginning with
God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither
indeed can be.20
Smith’s definition of truth is unusual and this has not gone unnoticed by Mormon
scholars. Truth as knowledge makes truth mind-dependent in a significant way. If
there is some feature of the world which is unknown to any mind, we could not say
anything true about it; there would be no fact of the matter.
B. H. Roberts (former member of the First Council of the Seventy), Bruce R.
McConkie (former member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles), and others want
to avoid the mind-dependent conception of truth and the obvious concerns it raises.
Roberts understand Smith as teaching there was a truth relative to a particular
individual and there is also absolute truth. Roberts thinks Smith’s definition of
truth as knowledge is just a definition of relative truth, which Roberts takes to be
according “to each individual, knowledge of things as they are and as they were, and
as they are to become, will be to him the truth and the fullness thereof, though not
necessarily all the truth that is. This will be each man’s truth, or relative truth.”21
However, Roberts thinks that implicit in Smith’s definition is a concept of absolute
truth. There is a way things really are and a way things some individual takes them
to be; these are not necessarily the same. In this way, absolute truth is not
knowledge of things as they are, were, and will be, but just things as they are, were,
and will be. Importantly, truth is not correspondence with reality, truth just is
reality itself in Robert’s view.
By describing intelligence as “the light of truth,” Smith seems to make a
necessary connection between truth and intelligence so that as light is the natural
and necessary result of the sun, so intelligence is the natural and necessary result
of truth. With Roberts’ absolute, mind-independent conception of truth, he is able to
make sense out this connection: intelligence is “the power by which truth is
cognized and absorbed, and which he holds forth as Eternal, uncreated and
uncreatable, therefore Eternal as truth itself—a parallel existence with Truth:
Intelligence—Truth!”22 So, according to Roberts, so long as there is anything at all
in the world (so long as there is truth), there must necessarily be some intelligence
to perceive it. And, so Roberts says, by definition intelligences must possess at least
a basic suite of cognitive faculties. What else could we mean by intelligence unless
we mean it is a thing with at least some cognitive powers?
But Roberts’ solution to the problem of relativism points to deeper problems
with Smith’s description of intelligence as “the light of truth.” In particular, we
want to know how there could be a necessary connection between truth and
D&C 93:33-34.
H. Roberts and John W. Welch, The Truth, the Way, the Life : An Elementary Treatise
on Theology, 2nd ed., B.Y.U. Studies Monographs (Provo, Utah: B.Y.U. Studies, 1996), 56.
22 Roberts and Welch, 57.
20
21 B.
Eleutheria 3:1 Fall (2014) 24
The Eternal Progression Argument Against Mormonism
intelligence and why there should be any truth around at all. Orson Pratt goes some
way toward providing an answer, although his view at this point is not orthodox. He
has a monistic picture in which God is Truth and God is the whole of reality. He
cashes out his view this way:
As God is Light and Truth, and Light and Truth is God, all the
characteristics which belong to one, belong to the other also. An infinite
number of tabernacles [i.e., persons] filled with Truth, contains no more than
one filled with the same: so likewise an infinite number of tabernacles filled
with God knows no more than one knows. Truth is one Truth though dwelling
in millions, so likewise God is one God though dwelling in countless numbers
of tabernacles.23
Pratt’s monism provides a plausible solution to the apparent absolute/relative
problem created by Smith’s definition of truth as knowledge: “Truth is not a
plurality of truths, because it dwells in plurality of persons, but it is one truth,
indivisible, though it dwells in millions of persons… TRUTH is the God that dwells
in them.”24 There is no gap between knowledge and truth for God. God just is the
truth. And his panentheism might have access to better resources to explain why
there is any truth at all. The trouble is that Joseph Smith was clearly not a monist,
so the LDS has church has officially condemned Pratt’s view at this point.
Therefore, the best option is take Robert’s view that truth is “the sum of
existence,” which takes intelligence as a necessary outcome as the “light of truth.”25
There is still the matter of what exactly intelligence is. The nature of
“intelligence” is understood at least two different ways, each of which has important
epistemological implications. According to Brigham Young and Parley and Orson
Pratt, intelligence is a singular, undifferentiated thing. When a person is
“organized,” he is organized from this intelligence. Man did not exist eternally as an
individual; part of the eternal “intelligence” became an individual at some point in
the infinite past. 26 In this case, cognitive faculties are conferred upon individual
through the natural process by which “intelligence” is organized into an individual.
B. H. Roberts (and probably Joseph Smith) thought that intelligences were
eternal. Individual persons existed eternally as conscious, differentiated beings.
This is the best understanding of what Smith recorded in the Book of Abraham:
“Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized
before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great
ones.”27 In this case, at least some of the cognitive faculties would exist in
Orson Pratt, "The Pre-Existence of Man," The Seer 1, no. 1 (1853), 133.
Ibid.., 24.
25 Roberts and Welch, 61.
26 Blake Ostler, "The Idea of Pre-Existence in the Development of Mormon Thought,"
Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15, no. 1 (1982), 63.
27 Book of Abraham 3:22.
23
24
25 The Eternal Progression Argument Against Mormonism
embryonic form along with the individual. B. H. Roberts gives this definition of
intelligences:
They are uncreated; self-existent entities, necessarily self-conscious, and
otherwise consciousness—they are conscious of the “me” and the “not me.”
They possess powers of comparison and discrimination without which the
term “intelligence” would be a solecism. They discern between evil and good;
between good and better; they possess will or freedom—within certain limits
at least. The power, among other powers, to determine upon a given course of
conduct as against any other course of conduct. The individual intelligence
can think his own thoughts, act wisely or foolishly; do right or wrong. To
accredit an intelligence with fewer or less important powers than these would
be to deny him intelligence altogether.28
Since Robert’s view is the most orthodox, his will be what I take as normative for
Mormonism. Also, it is significant the Roberts takes the cognitive faculties to exist
necessarily (analytic necessity because to be an intelligence is, by definition, to
possess at least some cognitive abilities. It is not the case that intelligences
themselves exist necessarily), at least in their embryonic form.
God is Immanent within Universe and Subject to Eternal Laws
Here is the picture so far. There are three uncreated realties: intelligences,
matter, and laws that govern intelligences and matter. God does not create this
picture; he is a product of this picture. The intelligence we call “God” is person who,
according to Joseph Smith, “finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory [other
intelligences], because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws [laws
for his kingdom, not laws in general] whereby the rest could have a privilege to
advance like himself."29
Since according to Joseph Smith, “there is no such thing as immaterial
matter” and there are eternal, self-existent laws that govern matter, it follows that
God, and all other persons, being composed of matter, are subject to those laws.
Parley Pratt, a leader in the early Mormon church and Orson Pratt’s younger
brother, said that all beings, including the person we know as God, is “subject to the
laws which govern, of necessity, even the most refined order of physical existence.
All physical element, however embodied, quickened or refined, is subject to the
general laws necessary to all existence.”30 He added that these laws therefore “apply
with equal force to the great, supreme, Eternal Father of the heavens and of the
earth, and to his meanest subjects.”31 This shows that the universe and its relevant
Roberts and Welch, 63.
Smith and Smith. 354.
30 Parley Pratt as cited in Jim Adams, “The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph Smith?,”
28
29
182.
31
Ibid.
Eleutheria 3:1 Fall (2014) 26
The Eternal Progression Argument Against Mormonism
laws are not determined by God nor are they ontologically dependent upon him.
Instead, they are on “ontological par” with him.32 This led LDS philosopher David
Paulsen to conclude, “God has always acted within a physical environment of
uncreated mass-energy, a social environment of other selves, and within a
framework of eternal laws and principles. These aspects of the world which are coeternal with Him condition and limit Him.”33
In light of this, Joseph Smith’s statement that God is an exalted man
becomes clear. God, who is of the same species as man, achieved godhood by
progression according to the self-existent, eternal laws of salvation. The progression
from primal intelligence to organization within a spirit body (consisting only of
matter), to organization within a body of flesh, to godhood is the process of
exaltation, the eternal law of salvation. So, in principle, through obedience to the
same laws, any man could achieve exaltation, or godhood. As Lorenzo Snow
famously quipped, “As man is God once was, as God is man may be."34
Creation from Pre-Existent Matter
In his creation, God continues to be bound by natural law and the eternality
of matter and intelligences. “Creation” is not ex nihilo, but is organization according
to pre-existent law. Smith asserted that God used pre-existing matter to organize
the world “out of chaos,” but “element [disorganized matter] had an existence from
the time he had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be
destroyed; and they may be organized and reorganized, but not destroyed. They had
no beginning, and can have no end.”35
In the case of human beings, God apparently has even less direct control.
Man is not created, but begotten. God, in relation to human beings on this planet, is
understood to be of the same species as us, but just further along in his
development. He is literally the father of our spirits; he did not create us. Rather,
we were “born” according to natural laws and in his image, in the same way an
earthly son is born in the image of his earthly father. Joseph Fielding Smith said,
"All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother and
are literally the sons and daughters of Deity" and spirits (intelligences within a
spirit body) are the “offspring of celestial parentage."36 The Mormon view is that the
nature of God’s fatherhood God is exactly the same as physical, fleshly fatherhood.
He also has the same amount of control over the way his offspring will be. They will
32
David Paulsen as cited in Jim Adams, “The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph Smith?,”
181.
33
Ibid.
See Gerald N. Lund, "Is President Lorenzo Snow's oft-repeated statement - 'As man now is,
God once was; as God now is, man may be' - accepted as official doctrine by the
Church?" Ensign (February 1982), 38.
35 B. H. Roberts, A Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints, Century I, 6 vols., vol. 6 (Salt Lake City, Utah,: Deseret news press, 1930), 308-9
36 Joseph Fielding Smith, Man, His Origin and Destiny (Salt Lake City,: Deseret Book, 1954),
351, 355.
34
27 The Eternal Progression Argument Against Mormonism
be in his image, formed according to the natural process of celestial fatherhood. This
is why celestial marriage is the “gateway” of exaltation. Gods have spirit children.
In order to do that, they require a not only a Heavenly Father, but also a Heavenly
Mother. Through their union, spirit children are begotten. McConkie confirms this
idea: “An exalted and glorified Man of Holiness (Moses 6:57) could not be a Father
unless a Woman of like glory, perfection, and holiness was associated with him as a
Mother.”37
Mormonism as Naturalism
Alvin Plantinga described naturalism as the “view that there is no such
person as God, nor anything or anyone like him.”38 He adds parenthetically:
naturalism isn’t the view that “there are one or more finite gods.”39 On the Mormon
view, there certainly isn’t anything or anyone like the God of Christian theism that
Plantinga has in mind. However, Mormonism might not be naturalism because it
includes at least one finite god. But in the case of Mormonism this is just a semantic
point. Gods are exalted men. There is no extra metaphysical category that “gods” go
in. There are only intelligences, who are more or less exalted than other
intelligences. Further these intelligences are subject to eternal, natural law as
much as anything else. They are in no way transcendent of the universe; they are
fixtures within the universe. For these reasons, Mormonism should be understood
as a kind of naturalism.
THE ETERNAL PROGRESSION ARGUMENT AGAINST MORMONISM
Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism turns on the
conjunction of naturalism with Darwinian evolution as the explanation of the
diversity of all life “including ourselves and our cognitive systems.”40 Plantinga then
provides a number of possible explanations of how evolution might have produced
our cognitive systems; each possibility turns out to be either inscrutable or provide
positive reason to doubt the reliability of our cognitive faculties. Whether
inscrutable or positive evidence against reliability, each case counts as a defeater
for naturalism. Naturalism and Darwinian evolution, therefore, cannot be
rationally held at the same time.
Mormonism faces a similar problem. The bottom floor of Mormon cosmology
has three basic components: intelligences, laws, and matter. This looks relevantly
like the kind of naturalism Plantinga has in mind. However, there is a significant
difference between Mormonism and standard naturalism in terms of the origin of
our cognitive faculties. On standard naturalism, the faculties themselves are a
37
McConkie, 366.
Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000),
38 Alvin
227.
227.
Plantinga, 228.
39 Ibid.,
40
Eleutheria 3:1 Fall (2014) 28
The Eternal Progression Argument Against Mormonism
product of natural selection. The Mormon view is that cognitive systems exist as a
necessary part of self-existent intelligences. So Mormonism is not subject to exactly
the same argument Plantinga uses. However, we still need an account of the
reliability of the cognitive faculties. We can therefore consider the whether belief in
Mormon cosmology is undercut by its explanation of the origin the reliability of our
cognitive faculties. As best I can tell, there are only three possible accounts of the
origin of the reliability of our cognitive faculties. Either reliability is eternal, it is
progressive, or it is a consequence of being in the image of Heavenly Father.
Reliability is Eternal with Intelligence
The first option is to say that cognitive faculties are reliable eternally. The
nature of intelligence somehow guarantees that not only do we have the power to
cognize truth, but that power has always been reliable. This view has a number of
disadvantages. There does not seem to be any principled reason to say that not only
do intelligences possess cognitive faculties, but they are also reliable. Smith’s
statement that “intelligence is the light of truth” reveals a necessary connection
between intelligence and truth, but it does not tell us the nature of that connection.
That puts us in a neutral position; perhaps the cognitive faculties are reliable,
perhaps not. But, being an intelligence does not guarantee reliability; it only
guarantees the power to cognize truth. This view is, in principle, no different than
the standard picture of naturalism. Any sufficiently sophisticated (i.e., it has
cognitive faculties like perception, intuition, etc.) individual has the power to
cognize truth. The mere fact of sophistication does not guarantee reliability. In fact,
LDS thinkers make a similar point. Orson Pratt said, “The present qualities of our
minds are not eternal, but are the results of the combinations of anterior qualities,
which in their turn are again the results of the exercise of the eternal capacities."41
Since there is no principled reason to affirm our cognitive faculties are reliable, this
option makes the status of them inscrutable for us. Holding this view would count
as a defeater for Mormonism.
Reliability is the Consequence of Eternal Progression
A second option is that reliability is achieved once an intelligence has made
sufficient progress according to the laws of salvation. The idea here is that at some
point in the life of an intelligence, she crosses a “reliability threshold.” After
crossing the threshold, the cognitive faculties have been developed to the point that
they produce more true than false beliefs. Thus any belief gained after crossing the
threshold would be justified. This option is better than the first because it does not
assume without reason that our cognitive faculties just are reliable. It is also
apparently consistent with the idea of eternal progression. As we progress toward
exaltation, presumably so does the reliability of our cognitive faculties.
41 Pratt,
114.
29 The Eternal Progression Argument Against Mormonism
There are two of troubles for this view. The first is that we could never be in a
position to know that our cognitive faculties are reliable. What we need to be able to
do is discern where we are in relation to eternal progress. If we cannot know
whether or cognitive faculties are reliable, we must be agnostic about their status.
For Plantinga, agnosticism about reliability counts as a defeater. But making a
judgment about whether we have crossed the threshold is no easy feat since
progress is an endless and infinite process. Progression is “like the horizon one
pursues over the ocean—ever receding as one approaches it.”42 In order to discern
whether we’ve crossed the reliability threshold, we must assume our cognitive
faculties are reliable (how else could we check whether we have crossed the
threshold?). But to assume reliability in order to evaluate reliability is circular.
Therefore, we cannot know whether our faculties are reliable or not; it is inscrutable
for us.
The second trouble is that reliability as consequence of eternal progression
might make the same kind of assumption as the first option. The concern is about
how some intelligence can move from unreliable to reliable cognitive faculties. If
reliability is a consequence of eternal progression, then one must be able to make
progress in order to gain reliability. But, making progress requires sustained
obedience to the eternal law. That kind of coherent, sustained action toward a
particular end would plausibly require reliability to already be in place. So, in order
to get eternal progression going, we must already possess reliable cognitive
faculties. Therefore, this option faces the same problem as the first: there is no
principled reason why intelligences eternally possess reliable cognitive faculties.
Here is another way of getting at the same problem: there is a gap between
successfully knowing truth and eternal progression (and a gap between knowledge
and intelligence). McConkie explains that:
Knowledge can be obtained and used in unrighteousness; Satan gains his
power on this principle. But intelligence presupposes the wise and proper use
of knowledge, a use that leads to righteousness and the ultimate attainment
of exaltation. The devil has tremendous power and influence because of his
knowledge, but he is entirely devoid of the least glimmering of intelligence.
An intelligent person is one who applies his knowledge so as to progress in
the things of the Spirit; he glories in righteousness.43
The point is that the underlying assumption in this option, that reliability is
necessarily related to progression, is false. Since “knowledge can be obtained and
used in unrighteousness,” gaining knowledge can only be a necessary but not
sufficient condition for making eternal progress. In other words, reliability cannot
be the consequence of eternal progression; it is one of the requirements.
One objection might be that Heavenly Father can “jump start” reliability by
the use of revelation or providence. Through these means, he can guide an
, 62.
, 278.
42 Roberts
43 McConkie
Eleutheria 3:1 Fall (2014) 30
The Eternal Progression Argument Against Mormonism
intelligence across the reliability threshold. Though, the kind of intervention
Heavenly Father is capable of will be severely limited compared to a theistic view.
Heavenly Father cannot act outside of natural law; he cannot just make some
intelligence more exalted because that would be a violation of the eternal, selfexistent laws of salvation. Further, he is made only of matter. He is spatially
located a particular time and place. And the intelligence he wants to jump start is
in the same situation. Therefore, he can only operate as a stimulus external to an
intelligence. The stimulus provided by Heavenly Father would still be interpreted
by unreliable cognitive faculties and so it might still be impossible to get
progression going. But the deeper problem is that Heavenly Father himself would
have had to overcome the same difficulty. This creates an infinite regress. For this
reason, the use of revelation or providence does not work out the second option. In
light of this, the best case scenario for option two is that the status of our cognitive
faculties is inscrutable for us.
Reliability is the Consequence of Being in Heavenly Father’s Image
The third option is that our cognitive faculties are made reliable as the
consequence of being in Heavenly Father’s image. The basic idea is that when
Heavenly Father “forms” us into a spirit body, he imparts to us reliable cognitive
faculties. The argument runs like this:
(1) Heavenly Father has reliable cognitive faculties.
(2) Having reliable cognitive faculties is a divine attribute.
(3) We are formed in Heavenly Father’s image.
(4) Being formed in Heavenly Father’s image means we share in his divine
attributes.
(5) Therefore, we also have reliable cognitive faculties.
Let’s set aside the infinite regress problem brought up the second option and grant
(1). In support of (1) we could also say that reliably forming beliefs is a necessary,
but not sufficient, condition for eternal progress and exaltation. Heavenly Father is
an exalted being; therefore, must have reliable cognitive faculties. On Mormonism,
(3) and (4) are also true. Joseph Fielding Smith said that "Man is the child of God,
formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the
infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a
man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience
through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God."44
One of the problems with this argument is found in premise (2). Having
cognitive faculties is an attribute, but what makes it a divine attribute? Why is
reliability in particular a divine attribute? This points to a more general, but
deeper, problem. Since Heavenly Father is of the same species as us, we already
share in all his essential attributes or properties. In that case, none of Heavenly
Father’s essential attributes could be uniquely divine. His essential attributes just
44
Joseph Fielding Smith, 354-355. Emphasis mine.
31 The Eternal Progression Argument Against Mormonism
are those attributes that every intelligence possesses by virtue of being an
intelligence, the same way all humans have the same essential attributes just
because they are human. Former President John Taylor makes this point especially
clear: man “did not originate from a chaotic mass of matter, moving or inert” but
when Heavenly Father formed man, man was already “possessing, in an embryotic
state, all the faculties and powers of a God.”45
In light of this, being formed “in his image” and being “endowed with divine
attributes” could only refer to sharing in his accidental qualities, in the same way
an earthly father might pass on his blue hair or brown eyes to his children. In the
case of Heavenly Father’s forming of in his image, this seems to be similar to what
the Mormon view is. Heavenly Father is an exalted, embodied man. For us to be
made in his image is, quite literally, to be made physically like him. In fact, the
Mormon view is that Heavenly Father, as the father of our spirits, has exactly the
same relation to his offspring an earthly father does to his children. Brigham Young
stated, "[God] created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process
of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the
eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be."46 B. H. Roberts said that “we are
brought forth by the natural laws of procreation.”47
This leaves us with two options: either reliability is an essential attribute or
it is not. If it is essential, we already possess it since we are the same species as
Heavenly Father. It is not conferred on us because we are his offspring. However,
we have already seen that we are only warranted in believing that the cognitive
faculties themselves are essential, and not reliability. This leaves us with one
choice: reliability is an accidental property. But what warrant do we have for
thinking that a specific accidental attribute is among those attributes we are
endowed with when Heavenly Father “begets” us?
This raises a concern with (4). In order for the argument to be successful, (4) must
be restated as
(4’) Being formed in Heavenly Father’s image means we share in all his
divine attributes.
However, being made in the image of God cannot mean we take on all the attributes
of God. It means that we become, by virtue of being given a spirit body, physically
like him. The analogy given is that “As the horse, the ox, the sheep, and every living
creature, including man, propagates its own species and perpetuates its own kind,
so does God perpetuate his.”48 Clearly, not all the accidental attributes are passed
down from one generation to the next. We do not, for example, have the property of
being exalted to the point of having spirit children. So (4’)cannot be right; we do not
share in all Heavenly Father’s divine attributes.
45 Taylor
as cited in Jim Adams, “The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph Smith?,” 180.
Brigham Young, George D. Watt, and J. V. Long, Journal of Discourses, 54 vols., vol. 11
(Liverpool: F. D. Richards, 1854), 122.
47 B. H. Roberts, The Gospel : An Exposition of Its First Principles, and Man's Relationship to
Deity, 10th ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1965), 280.
48 President John Taylor as cited in McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 180.
46
Eleutheria 3:1 Fall (2014) 32
The Eternal Progression Argument Against Mormonism
One final possibility is
(4’’) Being formed in Heavenly Father’s image means we share in at least his
attribute of having reliable cognitive faculties.
However, I can see no principled reason available to support this premise.
Therefore, reliability as the consequence of being made in the image of God is
inscrutable for us.
CONCLUSION
I have shown that belief in Mormon cosmology is undercut by the Mormon
explanation of the origin of reliable cognitive faculties. Of the three possible origins
considered, all three are inscrutable for us. This means that the Mormon worldview
cannot give us a reason to think our cognitive faculties are reliable. One application
of this argument is that Mormons could not consistently appeal to a “burning in the
bosom” as a reliable way of discovering truth. Burning bosoms are the result of a
naturalistic process that is not aimed at truth so there is no reason to expect them
to be truth conducive. Further, Mormons cannot consistently expect that God would
be able to keep “Moroni’s Promise,” as recorded in the Book of Mormon. The prophet
Moroni exhorts his reader to “ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if
these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent,
having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the
Holy Ghost”(Moroni 10:4). However, given the Mormon worldview, we have no
reason to expect that God or the Holy Ghost actually have the power required to
manifest truth or that, even if he did, we would be able to recognize it as such. If all
of this is right, it follows that consistent Mormons could never be Mormon for good
reasons.
33 The Eternal Progression Argument Against Mormonism
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, Jim. "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph Smith?" In The New Mormon
Challenge : Responding to the Latest Defenses of a Fast-Growing Movement,
edited by Francis Beckwith, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen, 535 p. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2002.
Benson, Ezra Taft. The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson. Salt Lake City, Utah:
Bookcraft, 1988.
McConkie, Bruce R. Mormon Doctrine. 2d ed. Salt Lake City,: Bookcraft, 1966.
Moreland, J. P. "The Absurdities of Mormon Materialism." In The New Mormon
Challenge : Responding to the Latest Defenses of a Fast-Growing Movement,
edited by Francis Beckwith, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen, Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2002.
Lund, Gerald N., "Is President Lorenzo Snow's oft-repeated statement - 'As man
now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be' - accepted as official
doctrine by the Church?" Ensign (February 1982).
Ostler, Blake. "The Idea of Pre-Existence in the Development of Mormon Thought."
Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15, no. 1 (1982): 59-78.
Plantinga, Alvin. Warranted Christian Belief. New York: Oxford University Press,
2000.
Plantinga, Alvin. "The Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism." In Naturalism
Defeated? : Essays on Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument against
Naturalism, edited by James K. Beilby, x, 283 p. Ithaca: Cornell University,
2002.
Pratt, Orson. "The Pre-Existence of Man." The Seer 1, no. 1 (1853).
Pratt, Orson. "Absurdities of Immaterialism." In The Essential Orson Pratt, edited
by David J. Whittaker, xxxii, 407 p. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1991.
Roberts, B. H. A Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of LatterDay Saints, Century I. Vol. 6. 6 vols. Salt Lake City, Utah,: Deseret news
press, 1930.
Roberts, B. H. The Gospel : An Exposition of Its First Principles, and Man's
Relationship to Deity. 10th ed. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1965.
Eleutheria 3:1 Fall (2014) 34
The Eternal Progression Argument Against Mormonism
Roberts, B. H. and John W. Welch. The Truth, the Way, the Life : An Elementary
Treatise on Theology. 2nd ed. B.Y.U. Studies Monographs. Provo, Utah:
B.Y.U. Studies, 1996.
Smith, Joseph. "The King Follett Sermon." Ensign, (April 1971).
Smith, Joseph Fielding. Man, His Origin and Destiny. Salt Lake City,: Deseret
Book, 1954.
Smith, Joseph and Joseph Fielding Smith. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.
Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976.
Young, Brigham, George D. Watt and J. V. Long. Journal of Discourses. Vol. 11. 54
vols. Liverpool: F. D. Richards, 1854.